Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote: The relationship between the state and the local governments is not a federal system. It's a unitary system, and the state government has the final authority in everything.
States frequently pass laws to ignore local laws. See: Texas and anything that comes out of Austin. See the congress stopping DC local healthcare. etc
The comments were regarding the States overriding Federal laws. You post takes that in the opposite direction ... allowing states to override local laws.
"uni-cycle" misunderstood (or distorted) my initial comment regarding the relationship between the slate and the local governments.
At this point, this is likely a huge over reaction. The truth is nobody knows the full context of any decision and how it will impact abortions in the US, so everything you have written is essentially fake news and may not even be pertinent to the issue in question. The left will use this leak as justification for court packing / expansion of the court and feel a real sense of urgency right now because they know that they are going to get slaughtered in the midterm elections [actually this deliberate leak seems like a desperate attempt by the left to try to energize their voting base and ignore the current state of this country (rampant inflation, a proxy war with Russia, skyrocketing crime, a complete failure of immigration policy, a crumbling stock market, etc.) and sway voters to ignore far more pertinent issues].
But I will bite. My kids looked pretty human in all of their ultrasound pictures. At their first ultrasound (at about 9 weeks, when we learned we were having twins) we could see them move, a few weeks later my wife could start feeling that movement. During their pregnancy I could watch my wife's belly move as they were learning how to use their muscles. Those all strike me as actions of living beings. My twins were born premature (at 34 weeks), my brothers were born at 32 weeks, my neighbors were born severely premature at about 25 weeks. All are fully human, as far as I can tell (at least they look human any time I see them running around, playing soccer or walking through the neighborhood). You may call them cells, I call them humans. Individuals like you like to use terms to obscure the fact that these are humans.
One of my wife's employee's daughters had an unplanned pregnancy. She claimed not to know she was pregnant (which is a lie, or she is just that stupid) until late in the pregnancy (too late to find a place willing to abort the child), so she gave birth and the child was given up for adoption. The child is absolutely fine (in spite of her drug use) and has two adoptive parents who love him.
And how is the mother in the latter case? I see you don't consider her worthy of mention except as a vessel for carrying a baby.
Did she suffer injuries during the birth? Does she still suffer from them? Were her education and career affected? What about her mental health? Her body will have undoubtedly been changed, whether or not she suffered any third or fourth degree tears. The woman quite likely didn't want a child so much that she didn't think about the possibility of being pregnant.
I don't think you're quite the nice guy towards women you're trying to pretend to be.
She was a disaster before the birth. She was a disaster after the birth. She had no injuries from the birth. I have the views I do because of the influence of my mother, my wife and my daughters. One can be pro-woman and opposed to most forms and rationales behind abortions. The typical justifications for abortions (health of the mother, rape, incest, genetic disorders, inviable pregnancies, etc.) typically only apply to a very small percentage of abortions. The case in question deals with a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions after 15 weeks gestation. By 15 weeks, rape, incest and any genetic conditions would be known, so most of the arguments that the poster was referring to would not apply in this case.
All individual rights issues aside, which are far more serious, this completely changes the shape of the midterms and it’s hard to see it benefitting the GOP.
The pro-abortion access Center for Reproductive Rights estimated 25 states would likely ban abortion if Roe is overturned. Those states included Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
According to an organization that is the leading advocate for abortion, nearly half of the states in the nation already have laws that could restrict abortions if the Supreme Court invalidates Roe v. Wade. That scenario becam...
A leaked draft with 5 republican votes means this is final. Republicans are going to get to own this political decision from now until November. Democrats will be running on expanding the court to rescind this political ruling.
If the Democrats try to make this a major campaign issue for them it will be a disaster, which probably means they'll do it because they are so out of touch. Except in heavily progressive area's and in the MSM most American's are not going to care strongly about abortion now being a state level policy, which is what it should be based on the constitution, rather than federal government policy. The people who are going to go bonkers over this would never vote Republican under any circumstance. The Americans who are up for grabs in elections care way more about the economy, inflation, and what latest nonsense is being inserted into the schools. A swing voter in Virginia will not be influenced by whether Texas can now make abortion illegal in Texas.
Midterm elections are about turnout. Prior to this, democrats didn't have an issue to motivate their base. A potential nationwide abortion ban is the perfect issue with the perfect villain. Telling the base that an illegitimate court is going to take away rights from women, minorities, gays, etc. is an issue that touches almost the entire coalition that voted for Biden.
All individual rights issues aside, which are far more serious, this completely changes the shape of the midterms and it’s hard to see it benefitting the GOP.
Most republican lawmakers are not pro-life. But they check the box for campaign purposes. You see, the abortion issue has been a big vote getter and huge money raiser for the GOP. Especially among evangelicals and Catholics. Many never wanted this day to come because the fund raising and vote pandering dry up if they can't run on this issue anymore.
This may sound radical but Maybe use birth control if u dont want to get pregnant? Don't they have something u cam inject that lasts several months or yrs? Probs cheaper and safer than an abortion.
Should society kill people with down syndrome? The answer is a resounding NO, but according to you, it is ok to kill people who do not have developed brains.
Your logic is evil.
Incorrect. People with Down Syndrome are human beings. Fetuses without brains unable to survive on their own and which are never viable for life are not human beings. That's my argument.
This may sound radical but Maybe use birth control if u dont want to get pregnant? Don't they have something u cam inject that lasts several months or yrs? Probs cheaper and safer than an abortion.
What is really radical is the idea that men should be the ones getting a jab that last several months or years to prevent their seed from infecting a woman.
She was a disaster before the birth. She was a disaster after the birth. She had no injuries from the birth. I have the views I do because of the influence of my mother, my wife and my daughters. One can be pro-woman and opposed to most forms and rationales behind abortions. The typical justifications for abortions (health of the mother, rape, incest, genetic disorders, inviable pregnancies, etc.) typically only apply to a very small percentage of abortions. The case in question deals with a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions after 15 weeks gestation. By 15 weeks, rape, incest and any genetic conditions would be known, so most of the arguments that the poster was referring to would not apply in this case.
This argument is completely false on so many different levels. There are thousands of genetic conditions that are not known until later in the pregnancy. Many women, especially young girls who have not had regular periods DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE PREGNANT until later in the pregnancy, especially if they have been RAPED by a family member at a young age, they don't even know what sex is. Ectopic pregnancies can be discovered after 15 weeks. Severe health issues can crop up after 15 weeks. But it doesn't matter!!! Because the law does not recognize the a fetus as a human being, even if your religion does, so it is none of your business what a woman does, she does not have to justify her reasons to you, or to the government. It's a PRIVATE health matter.
This may sound radical but Maybe use birth control if u dont want to get pregnant? Don't they have something u cam inject that lasts several months or yrs? Probs cheaper and safer than an abortion.
If it’s not wrong for a rape victim to terminate their unwanted pregnancy, then it’s not wrong for anyone else to terminate their unwanted pregnancy.
This may sound radical but Maybe use birth control if u dont want to get pregnant? Don't they have something u cam inject that lasts several months or yrs? Probs cheaper and safer than an abortion.
You are a great example how no sex education failed the American public.
Should society kill people with down syndrome? The answer is a resounding NO, but according to you, it is ok to kill people who do not have developed brains.
Your logic is evil.
Incorrect. People with Down Syndrome are human beings. Fetuses without brains unable to survive on their own and which are never viable for life are not human beings. That's my argument.
I see your point, but no child can survive "on their own" until well into childhood. They're all dependent on others to care for them. Are they not human until they no longer require other humans for support, biological or otherwise? This isn't a sufficient definition of life, in my opinion. It's too simple.
This issue tears me apart. While I 100% support a woman's right to choose what happens to their bodies, I can't NOT ask myself if anyone is considering the rights of those unborn, regardless of the circumstances. These beings - potential humans, fetuses, the unborn, whatever term suits your purpose - have no voice in these matters. They have different DNA, different biological profiles than the mother. They are separate beings.
The issue, I suppose is biology. Females are designed to be incubators for 9 months, like it or not. They have no umbilical cord or placenta until impregnation. Are those part of the female body? OR the unborn? Who owns the decision to remove them? Whose life depends on them?
I support all life. To me, one must be consistent though. For my political views, the Dems seem to base most of their policies (civil, social, otherwise) on the collective rights of all humans. I vote Dem. But I'm also Pro-Life. Pro-Birth. Pro-Fetus.
A Pro-Life Democrat. I think I'm allowed to be so.
And how is the mother in the latter case? I see you don't consider her worthy of mention except as a vessel for carrying a baby.
Did she suffer injuries during the birth? Does she still suffer from them? Were her education and career affected? What about her mental health? Her body will have undoubtedly been changed, whether or not she suffered any third or fourth degree tears. The woman quite likely didn't want a child so much that she didn't think about the possibility of being pregnant.
I don't think you're quite the nice guy towards women you're trying to pretend to be.
She was a disaster before the birth. She was a disaster after the birth. She had no injuries from the birth. I have the views I do because of the influence of my mother, my wife and my daughters. One can be pro-woman and opposed to most forms and rationales behind abortions. The typical justifications for abortions (health of the mother, rape, incest, genetic disorders, inviable pregnancies, etc.) typically only apply to a very small percentage of abortions. The case in question deals with a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions after 15 weeks gestation. By 15 weeks, rape, incest and any genetic conditions would be known, so most of the arguments that the poster was referring to would not apply in this case.
I was kind of hoping to hear you say that you formed your own opinions from your education, research and logical conclusions, not that you had been influenced by whoever you think sounds most convincing in order to try and present yourself as some kind of good guy on an internet forum. The way you talk about women is appalling. "A disaster". Maybe that woman had reasons for her troubles, that you do not know about. Thats a human being that was once one of your prized fetus, but I guess since she does fit into your ideal of a fetus, a mother, a wife or a daughter, you just consider her expendable.
The problem is, Joe Dirt, men lie in order to trick women into having unprotected sex with them, and they walk out on pregnant women. Those women are often then left feeling that in order to preserve their own security, they would better off having an abortion. Not therefore just women who are raped or carry fetus with genetic disorders or those who are lucky enough to test positive AND access abortion before your perfect little cut off date. You don't even seem aware of normal biological occurrences, such as false negative tests or womens' periods continuing during pregnancy, so that they have no idea they are pregnant.
I just don't find your arguments very plausible. The bigger constitutional questions are that not only has the US Supreme Court made known its intention to change the constitution at its roots by ignoring the doctrine of stare decisis, it appears to be subject to political influence and whim and have no or little accountability.
